2. Budget Options-2010-2011 Background March 5 Briefing and Input
Potential Projects
Policy ( Petaluma)
Decisions?

3. March 5 2010 briefing Background -Baseline Budget -Project funding
-2008 Strategy Session
Options and Decision
Options for
Next Steps??

4. Background Baseline Budget
Budget Categories
Overhead
General Benefit
c. Specific Benefit Projects

5. Base
Year Total Billed
$225 k $ 225 k
$178, $ 178,704
$178, $ 178,304
$178, $ 178,304
$ $178, $ 150,300
? , ???

6. 2007-2009 Projects Watershed Signs $ 16 k Salmonid Monitoring $ 34 k
Laterals (~$140 k Marin WWT) $ 12.5 k
STRAW $ 15 k
Perf. Measures/Indicators $ 43 k
Water Conservation-SCWA $ 25 k
Fact Sheet $ 12.5 k
Workshop-SW & WWT $ k
Climate Change/Watersheds $ 50 k
Total $ 458k

7. May 2008 Strategy Session http://www. nbwatershed
Part I-The Past
Mission / Goals / Process for Projects
Past Project Evaluation
IRWMP / Policies
Recent Projects-Evaluation
Performance Measures / Long-term Targets
Part II-The Future
New Projects
Budget options

8. NEW Funding SFEP/EPA -$1.5 Million
“ Implementing Sediment and Pathogen TMDLs in the North Bay”
Marin County- Richardson Bay~ $ 369,542
Napa RCD- Napa River ~$ 367,500
SEC- Sonoma Creek $ 363,800
SSCRCD-Sonoma Creek-~ $ 318, 300
NBWA/ MMWD $ 75,000
In Kind- $80k
NO NBWA cash contribution

9. Options for 2010-2011 Prior year decision –
1) Allocate entire carryover to “projects” – TBD
- No specific proposals at this time
- HFTC reviewed proposed projects on March 1(~$200k)
2) Allocate all carryover to baseline budget
-reduce membership costs ( ~50%Reduction)
- No projects
3) Split carryover between baseline budget and “projects”
- Reduce membership costs by ( ~25% Reduction)
- Allocate ~ $40k to projects
Prior year decision –
- 10% reduction for
-Go up to 95% this coming year (5% Reduction) and baseline (100%) in
- Allow -~ $75k for projects
Note! This year we included covering Petaluma fees with carryover from dropped project and for we would cover with carryover.

10. Input
Preferences for options 2(all carryover to membership fees) and 4 (5 % reduction from base-recommended option)
Develop policy for “Petaluma” case
Consider policy for selective reduction
Add option- hold at level
10% reduction

11. Revised Options
1) Prior year decision – Drop Option 2 and use carryover to reduce membership fees to 90% (10% reduction), go up to 95% (5% reduction) this coming year – and back to 100% in
- Allow -~ $75k for projects
HFTC reached consensus on priority projects worth $75 k on April 23
2) Allocate entire carryover to “projects” – to be determined
- HFTC reviewed proposed projects on March 1 totaling ~$200k
3) Allocate all carryover to baseline budget and reduce membership costs by ~50%- - No projects
4) Split carryover between baseline budget and “projects”
- Reduce membership costs by ~25%
- Allocate ~ $40k to projects
5) Hold member ship fees to level (10% reduction from base)

12. Potential Projects WQ-Met March 11-no new Projects
IWR-Met March 24- no new projects
- Suggested Joint meeting of all TCs to discuss
“Regulatory Opportunities”
“Planning”
HF-Met April 23
-Reached Consensus on Projects for a total of $75 k
-Scheduled Joint TC mtg. for June 15

13. HFTC Projects 1)Fund “Slow it, Spread it, Sink it” at $25 k
2) Education/ Restoration at $50 k
Marin - STRAW,TBI- $15k
Napa- Napa RCD- SLEWS-$15k
Sonoma- SEC-EL-$15k
“Fish out of Water” video- FOCMC-$5k

14. Slow it, Spread it, Sink it
*$20k to SSCRCD for :
final text and graphics, and end design,
production and distribution
web site and templates
*$5k to Marin County and Napa RCD ($2.5 each) to develop county specific web based versions

15. STRAW,TBI- $15k
Conduct habitat restoration of East Marin County streams
Install native plants and remove invasive species
Engage students in professionally-designed restoration activities
Provide comprehensive education activities for students and teachers throughout the school year
Monitor and maintain sites for three years to ensure plant survival

16. Napa RCD- SLEWS-$15k Student and Landowner Education and Watershed Stewardship
* Teacher recruitment and training,
* Volunteer/Mentor recruitment, coordination and training (approximately 5 volunteers are needed),
* classroom visits where students will learn about the restoration project that they will be implementing,
* field restoration days where students will be engaged in projects such as planting of native vegetation, establishing irrigation for restoration, removing non-native plants, establishing insectary plantings, etc.
* Coordination among restoration practitioners, teachers, mentors, and students.
Matching funds in the amount of $5,000 from the Community Foundation have been confirmed. Additional match in the amount of $15,000 will be requested from the Napa County Wildlife Conservation Commission and/or the California Department of Conservation Watershed Coordinator Grant Program.

17. SEC-EL-$15k Environmental Leadership Program
Youth help restore riparian areas, propagate native plants, and grow fruits and vegetables using low water techniques. 
Hands-on learning is linked to enrichment activities including field trips to local nurseries and organizations, attendance at community meetings, meetings with local land owners and professionals,
A yearly retreat, and discussion and assessment of job skills. Enviro-Leaders are also mentored as public speakers.
Enviro-Leaders receive a stipend for participation.

18. “Fish out of Water” video- FOCMC-$5k
A multimedia piece that uses a young animated steelhead to illustrate the impacts of water quality on its ability to survive
Accompanying school-produced podcasts that will also be used as educational materials
A program intended to make information sharing easy among age groups who use portable devices

19. Policy (Petaluma) Proposed Policy
When a member requests termination consistent with provision 19(b) in the NBWA MOU and indicates:
1) Termination is due to temporary economic difficulties
2) Interest in renewing membership
NBWA will continue to show the member on our web site and in NBWA printed materials for a period of up to 3 years

20. Decision??

22. Conference Feedback 1.The conference met my needs/expectations
(19) (51) (101)
2. The facilities were adequate and enjoyable
3. Overall the conference was about the right length.

23. 4.. Information gained from this conference will enable me to be more effective in my role/understanding of interconnected Bay Area water issues.
5. The keynote addresses provided relevant and useful information.
6-8. Speaker summary-

24. 2012 Conference Committee suggestions
Facilities
– Options – (Embassy Suites, San Rafael)
Thursday rather than Friday?
Program
-Investigate cost for videotaping speaker
-Have registration, networking from 8:00 to 9:00 am, and longer breaks for networking
-Allow time for Q&A with each panel
Registration
-Use different on line service

25. 2010 Conference Budget Income Sponsors- $ 35,500
Registration- $ 11,770
Total $47,270
Expenses ~$ 33,106
Estimate
Net income~ $14,164